The undocumented immigrant population in the United States fell by nearly 1 million persons between the years 2010 and 2016 -- from 11.7 million to 10.8 million. The number of undocumented is at its lowest level since 2003.The largest undocumented group, persons from Mexico, has declined sharply. Undocumented Mexicans numbered 6.6 million in 2010 but fell to 5.7 million in 2016. Populations from South America (Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) and Europe (Poland) also fell between 2010 and 2016. Three groups from Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) have increased in number in recent years, as have persons from Asian nations including India and China. Their growth, however, has not offset the decline of other groups. Only two U.S. states, Texas and Nebraska, registered an increase of 10,000 or more undocumented immigrants between 2010 and 2016. Nine of the ten largest states lost population including California (-367,000), Illinois (-118,000) and New York (-115,000). The greatest percentage declines were in Alabama (-37 percent), Mississippi (-32 percent) and New Mexico (-30 percent). Undocumented immigration rose in the 1990s by 145 percent and during the 2000s by 36 percent. The ongoing decline has been occurring across several administrations in Washington. Report author Robert Warren employs a methodology in which respondents to the American Community Survey are assigned immigration status based on key characteristics such as their period of entry, occupation, and likelihood of being immediate relatives of U.S. citizens
(Rob Paral, Rob Paral and Associates)

Legal scholar suggests that cities and the federal government have increasingly divergent views of citizenship in the modern world

Adapted from his forthcoming book,
The Democratic City: Local Citizenship in the Time of Globalization, this blog post by Kenneth Stahl examines how differing rules regarding suffrage at the local and federal level suggest the existence of different models of citizenship. For example, while San Francisco, Chicago and a few municipalities in Maryland grant non-citizens the right to vote in certain local elections, these individuals are barred from voting in state and federal elections. The author suggests residency and a sense of commonly shared interest are at the heart of local understandings of citizenship, in contrast to the federal level which grounds citizenship in birth or lineage. He suggests that cities, open to and dependent upon foreign capital and immigrant workers, have developed this approach in order to survive and prosper in a globalized economy. Narrowly defining citizenship at the local level may dissuade people and capital from locating in a particular city. To be competitive, cities must expand opportunities for civic participation to all who reside there. At the federal level, however, citizenship is connected to territory, and therefore limiting the right to vote can be seen as part of an effort to control a nation's borders. The author believes these two conceptions of citizenship had historically complemented each other, but that they are now increasingly in conflict. He also suggests that fluid conceptions of citizenship are alarming to those who are not as mobile as those making choices about which city or country to reside in. He concludes that competing visions of citizenship and the nature of cities in a globalized economy will continue to be flashpoints for conflict

The Portal is a project of Diversity Dynamics, LLC, in association with the Center for International Social Work, School of Social Work, Rutgers University, and the Immigrant Learning Center, Inc., Public Education Institute, Malden, MA. Please send content suggestions for the Portal, including events of interest, to: mail@usdiversitydynamics.com. No endorsements implied for research, opinions, resources or events featured on the Portal.